SUPREME COURT

Manawatu Standard, Volume L, Issue 142, 15 May 1930, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

PETITION FOR DIVORCE. PROCEEDINGS NOT DEFENDED. QUESTION OF DOMICILE. I . A petition in divorce was brought by 1 Iva May Stanley, school-teacher, of | Foxton, against her husband, Norman j Ernest Stanley, of Palmerston North, k before _Hii Honour the Chief Justice, l Sir Michael Myers, in the Supreme f Court at Palmerston North this morns' i r £- Petitioner stated through her counsel, Mr Baldwin, that she was married in 102 n. her husband a farmer, then residing at Kaipara Flats. The parties lived at Palmerston North, there j being no children. .Qn February 25, | lt'27, petitioner and respondent signed a deud of separation which had been in full force since that date. Peti- | tioner was born at Itongotea and was I now residing at Foxton, while respon- | dent was born at Wrenthorpe, Yorkt shire, and now resided at Palmerston | Nortn. 1, Mr Baldwin said he understood that || the defence, which was based upon the question of domicile, had been Sf withdrawn. Counsel quoted authorial fifes on the question of domicile. He W added tha* respondent was a man. of wl no property who had followed various 1 vocations in New Zealand. || Mr McGregor, for respondent, inti- » mated that he was withdrawing from § the pioeeedings, as his client had dis--1; appealed. Petitioner, in the box, stated that she first met her husband at a picnic 1 in Wellington in 1922. He had said i he had a farm in New South Wales, , and that he was at that period working on a boat owing to a drought in Australia. He later returned to his farm and tho next time petitioner saw him was in February, 1923, when he visited petitioner’s father’s house at Taikorea. He had stated his intention of selling the farm and taking up his permanent residence in New Zealand. Plaintiff agreod to marry him on this understanding, stating that she would not live in Australia. Bhe also stated her preference not to live at Taikorea, arid respondent suggested living in North Auckland. Respondent then went to Australia to sell his property, returning to New Zealand in November, 1923. He remained about Foxton until after Christmas. 1923, again expressing his wish to live „in blew Zealand. The marriage took place in 1924. His Honour; Was your husband educated ? Petitioner: Sometimes I think he was, and sometimes that he was not. Continuing her evidence, plaintiff said that on November 15, 1924, respondent Lad written stating that he had not sold the farm but had forfeited it. Early in 1925 he went to Australia as his parents had written stating they were ill. Mr Baldwin: I do not know whether that was true or not. Petitioner said that after her husband’s return to New Zealand he had written asking her to join him at his farm at Kaipara Flats. Mr Baldwin: That was another I vision. As a matter of fact he was working as a labourer on JVIr G. Coates’s farm. Petitioner said that while she was teaching at Foxton for a month after her marriage respondent had asked her for money to buy his father’s farm in Australia. This was refused and her husband had worked at Lower Hutt until he had sufficient money to go to Australia. He had written pro- [ mising to return some money to his wife, but he had stated that he had | borrowed it to compensate him for B the wedding. Returning to New Zeaffi land he had attempted to borrow more j& money, and had expressed a desire to K settle in Foxton. Petitioner had re--9 fused him and lie had found a job in § a boat as a trimmer. At this period I a deed of separation was drawn up. f After detailing further proceedings, petitioner stated that in 1928 her hu3f band was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for threatening to mur- | der her. He was released in January, I 1929, and rang petitioner up on vari- £ ous occasions from Wellington, and | stated his intention of staying in New ,| Zealand and persecuting petitioner. $ Several letters were received from rejj spbndent in which he reaffirmed his intention of staying in the Dominion. In one of these, respondent stated his intention of buying a sheep farm in New Zealand, obtaining a divorce, and marrying a Belgian woman. He had stated that lie had gone to considerable trouble in locating this lady, and he had advertised in Belgian papers to establish her whereabouts. A photograph purporting to be of the lady, and a letter written in French were also forwarded. , His Honour: His letters show an K. extraordinary mentality. Mr Baldwin quoted extracts from Sfe a large file of respondent’s letters to i hi 3 wife. In one, respondent stated ! his intention of buying a small farm, and in another suggested that petitioner purchase the farm and make him manager. At one stage lie had been employed on the Regent Theatre when he had written a glowing account of. his prospects. He was discharged at a minute’s notice. His Honour, after, perusing several of the letters, pointed out that respondent appeared to have a very poor opinion of New Zealanders and New • Zealand law. Mr Baldwin: He also has a poor idea of tho New Zealand police, and culled them “half-pie.” Incidentally, R. : 1 think it hastened his fcrrest. ■ H Confirmatory evidence was given by 1| petitioner’s father. John M. Mud- ■,* ford, farmer, of Taikorea, who stated HBf that he had opposed the wedding until E| respondent secured a home, is His Honour reserved his decision.